Redistricting in Minnesota after the 2020 census

Redistricting
State legislative and congressional redistricting after the 2020 census Select your state:AlabamaAlaskaArizonaArkansasCaliforniaColoradoConnecticutDelawareFloridaGeorgiaHawaiiIdahoIllinoisIndianaIowaKansasKentuckyLouisianaMaineMarylandMassachusettsMichiganMinnesotaMississippiMissouriMontanaNebraskaNevadaNew HampshireNew JerseyNew MexicoNew YorkNorth CarolinaNorth DakotaOhioOklahomaOregonPennsylvaniaRhode IslandSouth CarolinaSouth DakotaTennesseeTexasUtahVermontVirginiaWashingtonWest VirginiaWisconsinWyomingSubmit
General information
State-by-state redistricting procedures • Majority-minority districts • Gerrymandering
The 2020 cycle
United States census, 2020 • Congressional apportionment • Redistricting committees • Deadlines • 2022 House elections with multiple incumbents • New U.S.House districts created after apportionment • Congressional maps • State legislative maps • Lawsuits • Status of redistricting after the 2020 census
Redrawn maps
Redistricting before 2024 elections • Redistricting before 2026 elections
Ballotpedia's Election Administration Legislation Tracker

Redistricting is the process of enacting new district boundaries for elected offices, particularly for offices in the U.S. House of Representatives and state legislatures. This article chronicles the 2020 redistricting cycle in Minnesota.

Minnesota enacted new congressional district boundaries on February 15, 2022, when a special judicial redistricting panel issued an order adopting final maps. In its unanimous order, the panel wrote, "To afford counties and municipalities time to complete local redistricting, the statutory deadline for completing congressional and legislative redistricting is '25 weeks before the state primary election in the year ending in two.' In this decennium, that date is February 15, 2022. That date has arrived, and the legislature has not yet enacted a congressional redistricting plan. To avoid delaying the electoral process, the panel must now act."

Minnesota enacted new legislative district boundaries on February 15, 2022, when a special judicial redistricting panel issued an order adopting final maps. Minnesota Supreme Court Chief Justice Lorie Gildea established the five-judge special redistricting panel in June 2021 to hear legal challenges regarding redistricting and adopt maps should the legislature not agree on them. The panel consisted of two state court of appeals justices and three state district court judges. Republican governors originally appointed two of the five justices, Democratic governors originally appointed two, and former Gov. Jesse Ventura (Reform) originally appointed one justice.

On June 2, 2022, Gov. Tim Walz (D) signed legislation containing adjustments to Senate Districts 15 and 16 as well as to House Districts 15, 16, and 58. The changes were effective for the 2022 elections. On May 24, 2023, Walz signed a state budget bill that included modifications to Senate Districts 9, 12, 17, and 24. The changes were effective for the 2024 elections.

Click here for more information.

Minnesota's eight United States representatives and 201 state legislators are all elected from political divisions called districts. District lines are redrawn every 10 years following completion of the United States census. Federal law stipulates that districts must have nearly equal populations and must not discriminate on the basis of race or ethnicity.

See the sections below for further information on the following topics:

1. Summary: This section provides summary information about the drafting and enacting processes.
2. Apportionment and release of census data: This section details the 2020 apportionment process, including data from the United States Census Bureau.
3. Drafting process: This section details the drafting process for new congressional and state legislative district maps.
4. Enactment: This section provides information about the enacted congressional and state legislative district maps.
5. Court challenges: This section details court challenges to the enacted congressional and state legislative district maps.
6. Background: This section summarizes federal and state-based requirements for redistricting at both the congressional and state legislative levels. A summary of the 2010 redistricting cycle in Minnesota is also provided.

Summary

This section lists major events in the post-2020 census redistricting cycle in reverse chronological order. Major events include the release of apportionment data, the release of census population data, the introduction of formal map proposals, the enactment of new maps, and noteworthy court challenges. Click the dates below for additional information.

• May 24, 2023: The state's budget that Gov. Tim Walz (D) signed included modifications to four state legislative districts—the 9th, 12th, 17th, and 44th—effective starting with the 2024 elections.
• June 2, 2022: Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz (D) signed legislation making adjustments to certain congressional and legislative district boundaries.
• February 15, 2022: The Minnesota Judicial Branch Special Redistricting Panel adopted final congressional and legislative redistricting plans.
• January 4, 2022: The Minnesota Judicial Branch Special Redistricting Panel heard oral arguments from the sponsors of four submitted congressional and legislative redistricting plans.
• September 16, 2021: The U.S. Census Bureau released data from the 2020 census in an easier-to-use format to state redistricting authorities and the public.
• August 12, 2021: The U.S. Census Bureau delivered redistricting data to states in a legacy format.
• June 30, 2021: Minnesota Supreme Court Chief Justice Lorie Gildea established a five-justice special panel on redistricting to hear legal challenges and to decide congressional and legislative district boundaries by February 15, 2022, if necessary.
• April 26, 2021: The U.S. Census Bureau delivered apportionment counts.

Enactment

Enacted congressional district maps

See also: Congressional district maps implemented after the 2020 census

Minnesota enacted new congressional district boundaries on February 15, 2022, when a special judicial redistricting panel issued an order adopting final maps. In its unanimous order, the panel wrote, "To afford counties and municipalities time to complete local redistricting, the statutory deadline for completing congressional and legislative redistricting is '25 weeks before the state primary election in the year ending in two.' In this decennium, that date is February 15, 2022. That date has arrived, and the legislature has not yet enacted a congressional redistricting plan. To avoid delaying the electoral process, the panel must now act."

After the panel issued their order, Dave Orrick of the Twin Cities Pioneer Press wrote, "The impacts of the new maps weren’t immediately clear...Since Minnesota averted losing a congressional seat, the state’s eight districts for U.S. House members don’t appear jarringly different from current maps." Briana Bierschbach and Hunter Woodall wrote in the Star Tribune, “Under the new maps, the eighth Congressional district grew larger geographically to accommodate population declines in many rural counties.”Kyle Brown of Saint Paul television station KSTP wrote, “The state’s current balance of four Republican and four Democratic representatives in the U.S. House could be thrown for a loop with a radical shift in geography for the 2nd Congressional District, which by far had the most competitive race in 2020.”

Below are the congressional maps in effect before and after the 2020 redistricting cycle.

Minnesota Congressional Districts
until January 2, 2023

Click a district to compare boundaries.

Minnesota Congressional Districts
starting January 3, 2023

Click a district to compare boundaries.

Reactions

Minnesota Democrat-Farmer-Labor party chairperson Ken Martin issued a statement following the maps' enactment that said, in part, "I am grateful to Minnesota’s Special Redistricting Panel for its hard work and diligence. The Panel’s collection of public testimony from both individuals and communities across Minnesota was essential to the difficult and meticulous process of crafting state legislative and congressional maps. It will take some time for us to conduct a full analysis of these maps, but we are excited nonetheless to have this process conclude and have a clear sense of the political landscape in front of us." Peter Wattson, a lead plaintiff in one of the lawsuits challenging the state's process, said, "The plan is quite similar to the one I sent to the Senate and House redistricting committees on Jan. 15, as one I thought they could both live with. I’m pleased to see the panel was thinking along the same lines."

2020 presidential results

The table below details the results of the 2020 presidential election in each district at the time of the 2022 election and its political predecessor district. This data was compiled by Daily Kos Elections.

2020 presidential results by Congressional district, Minnesota
District	2022 district		Political predecessor district
	Joe Biden	Donald Trump	Joe Biden	Donald Trump
Minnesota's 1st	44.3%	53.5%	43.9%	54.0%
Minnesota's 2nd	52.5%	45.4%	52.4%	45.5%
Minnesota's 3rd	59.5%	38.5%	58.7%	39.4%
Minnesota's 4th	67.8%	30.2%	67.5%	30.5%
Minnesota's 5th	80.6%	17.4%	80.3%	17.7%
Minnesota's 6th	40.1%	57.7%	38.8%	59.0%
Minnesota's 7th	32.5%	65.7%	34.4%	63.8%
Minnesota's 8th	43.4%	54.7%	41.7%	56.3%

Enacted state legislative district maps

See also: State legislative district maps implemented after the 2020 census

Minnesota enacted new legislative district boundaries on February 15, 2022, when a special judicial redistricting panel issued an order adopting final maps. Minnesota Supreme Court Chief Justice Lorie Gildea established the five-judge special redistricting panel in June 2021 to hear legal challenges regarding redistricting and adopt maps should the legislature not agree on them. The panel consisted of two state court of appeals justices and three state district court judges. Republican governors originally appointed two of the five justices, Democratic governors originally appointed two, and former Gov. Jesse Ventura (Reform) originally appointed one justice.

On June 2, 2022, Gov. Tim Walz (D) signed legislation containing adjustments to Senate Districts 15 and 16 as well as to House Districts 15, 16, and 58. The changes were effective for the 2022 elections. On May 24, 2023, Walz signed a state budget bill that included modifications to Senate Districts 9, 12, 17, and 24. The changes were effective for the 2024 elections.

State Senate map

Below is the state Senate map in effect before and after the 2020 redistricting cycle.

Minnesota State Senate Districts
before 2020 redistricting cycle

Click a district to compare boundaries.

Minnesota State Senate Districts
after 2020 redistricting cycle

Click a district to compare boundaries.

State House map

Below is the state House map in effect before and after the 2020 redistricting cycle.

Minnesota State House Districts
before 2020 redistricting cycle

Click a district to compare boundaries.

Minnesota State House Districts
after 2020 redistricting cycle

Click a district to compare boundaries.

Drafting process

In Minnesota, congressional and state legislative district boundaries are drawn by the Minnesota State Legislature. These lines are subject to veto by the governor.

The Minnesota Constitution requires "that state Senate districts be contiguous, and that Representative districts be nested within Senate districts." State statutes apply contiguity requirements to all congressional and state legislative districts. Furthermore, state statutes stipulate that political subdivisions should not be divided "more than necessary."

Timeline

The Minnesota House Research Department prepared the following default statutory projected timeline for the 2020 redistricting cycle in Minnesota.

Projected redistricting timeline for Minnesota, 2020 cycle
Date	Event
April 1, 2020	Official date of the U.S. Census.
December 31, 2020	Initial statewide population results are released by the census bureau.
2021 legislative session	Upon convening of new legislature, appropriate committees on redistricting established to begin work drawing new maps.
April 1, 2021	Comprehensive block-level census totals are released to the state. These are the data that contain the level of detail necessary for new districts and maps to be created.
Late 2021 legislative session, early 2022 session	Legislature draws and debates new district maps. Maps are approved and enacted into law.
February 15, 2022	Deadline for enactment of new congressional and legislative districts. (Note: this deadline is an aspirational “policy” of the legislature.
March 29, 2022	Deadline for reestablishment or redistricting of municipal precincts (and wards, where applicable); local redistricting may begin upon adoption of new precinct boundaries.
April 26, 2022	Deadline for adoption of new local government election districts (except in certain cities with elections in 2021).
August 9, 2022	State Primary Elections. Candidates are elected based on the newly-drawn districts.
November 8, 2022	State General Elections. Candidates are elected based on the newly-drawn districts.

Committees and/or commissions involved in the process

The Minnesota Senate Redistricting Committee was composed of the following members:

Minnesota Senate Redistricting Committee members, 2021 cycle
Name	Partisan affiliation
State Sen. Mark Johnson Chair	Republican
State Sen. Mary Kiffmeyer Vice Chair	Republican
State Sen. Jason Isaacson Ranking Minority Member	Democratic
State Sen. Thomas Bakk	Independent
State Sen. John Jasinski	Republican
State Sen. Mary Kunesh	Democratic
State Sen. Erin Murphy	Democratic
State Sen. Eric Pratt	Republican

The Minnesota House of Representatives Redistricting Committee was composed of the following members:

Minnesota House of Representatives Redistricting Committee members, 2021 cycle
Name	Partisan affiliation
State Rep. Mary Murphy Chair	Democratic
State Rep. Ginny Klevorn Vice Chair	Democratic
State Rep. Paul Torkelson Republican Lead	Republican
State Rep. Kristin Bahner	Democratic
State Rep. Pat Garofalo	Republican
State Rep. Emma Greenman	Democratic
State Rep. Spencer Igo	Republican
State Rep. Fue Lee	Democratic
State Rep. Jamie Long	Democratic
State Rep. Jeremy Munson	Republican
State Rep. Jim Nash	Republican
State Rep. Anne Neu Brindley	Republican
State Rep. Tim O'Driscoll	Republican
State Rep. Liz Olson	Democratic
State Rep. Julie Sandstede	Democratic
State Rep. Jennifer Schultz	Democratic
State Rep. Zack Stephenson	Democratic
State Rep. Samantha Vang	Democratic
State Rep. Nolan West	Republican

Drafts and proposals

Minnesota Supreme Court redistricting panel

On June 30, 2021, Minnesota Supreme Court Chief Justice Lorie Gildea established a special redistricting panel for hearing and deciding challenges regarding both congressional and legislative redistricting. This panel was also empowered to decide on district plans should the legislature not agree on them. The members of the panel are listed below:

Minnesota Judicial Branch Special Redistricting Panel 2021
Name	Position	Appointing governor
Justice Louise Bjorkman	Minnesota Court of Appeals justice	Gov. Tim Pawlenty
Justice Diane Bratvold	Minnesota Court of Appeals justice	Gov. Mark Dayton
Justice Jay Carlson	Minnesota District Court justice	Gov. Tim Pawlenty
Justice Juanita Freeman	Minnesota District Court justice	Gov. Mark Dayton
Justice Jodi L. Williamson	Minnesota District Court justice	Gov. Jesse Ventura

On January 4, 2022, the Minnesota Judicial Branch Special Redistricting Panel heard presentations from sponsors of the four redistricting plans that the court considered.

Congressional and legislative redistricting plans

The four plans that the court considered are listed below. Click the link to view map images, statistical reports and data, and a copy of the plan sponsors' presentation before the special redistricting planel:

• Wattson plan
• Anderson plan
• Sachs plan
• Corrie plan

Legislative Proposals

The Minnesota House of Representatives Redistricting Committee approved congressional and legislative redistricting plans on December 9, 2021. The proposal will be submitted to the full state House in January.

Map images

A full list of proposed congressional and legislative map images that have been submitted to the legislature is available here.

Apportionment and release of census data

Apportionment is the process by which representation in a legislative body is distributed among its constituents. The number of seats in the United States House of Representatives is fixed at 435. The United States Constitution dictates that districts be redrawn every 10 years to ensure equal populations between districts. Every ten years, upon completion of the United States census, reapportionment occurs.

Apportionment following the 2020 census

The U.S. Census Bureau delivered apportionment counts on April 26, 2021. Minnesota was apportioned eight seats in the U.S. House of Representatives. This represented neither a gain nor a loss of seats as compared to apportionment after the 2010 census.

See the table below for additional details.

2020 and 2010 census information for Minnesota
State	2010 census		2020 census		2010-2020
	Population	U.S. House seats	Population	U.S. House seats	Raw change in population	Percentage change in population	Change in U.S. House seats
Minnesota	5,314,879	8	5,709,752	8	394,873	7.43%	0

Redistricting data from the Census Bureau

On February 12, 2021, the Census Bureau announced that it would deliver redistricting data to the states by September 30, 2021. On March 15, 2021, the Census Bureau released a statement indicating it would make redistricting data available to the states in a legacy format in mid-to-late August 2021. A legacy format presents the data in raw form, without data tables and other access tools. On May 25, 2021, Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost (R) announced that the state had reached a settlement agreement with the Census Bureau in its lawsuit over the Census Bureau's timetable for delivering redistricting data. Under the terms of the settlement, the Census Bureau agreed to deliver redistricting data, in a legacy format, by August 16, 2021. The Census Bureau released the 2020 redistricting data in a legacy format on August 12, 2021, and in an easier-to-use format at data.census.gov on September 16, 2021.

Court challenges

If you are aware of any relevant lawsuits that are not listed here, please email us at editor@ballotpedia.org.

This section will be updated to include information regarding legal challenges to enacted maps.

Background

This section includes background information on federal requirements for congressional redistricting, state legislative redistricting, state-based requirements, redistricting methods used in the 50 states, gerrymandering, and recent court decisions.

Federal requirements for congressional redistricting

According to Article I, Section 4 of the United States Constitution, the states and their legislatures have primary authority in determining the "times, places, and manner" of congressional elections. Congress may also pass laws regulating congressional elections.

“	The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.	”
—United States Constitution

Article I, Section 2 of the United States Constitution stipulates that congressional representatives be apportioned to the states on the basis of population. There are 435 seats in the United States House of Representatives. Each state is allotted a portion of these seats based on the size of its population relative to the other states. Consequently, a state may gain seats in the House if its population grows or lose seats if its population decreases, relative to populations in other states. In 1964, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Wesberry v. Sanders that the populations of House districts must be equal "as nearly as practicable."

The equal population requirement for congressional districts is strict. According to All About Redistricting, "Any district with more or fewer people than the average (also known as the 'ideal' population), must be specifically justified by a consistent state policy. And even consistent policies that cause a 1 percent spread from largest to smallest district will likely be unconstitutional."

Federal requirements for state legislative redistricting

The United States Constitution is silent on the issue of state legislative redistricting. In the mid-1960s, the United States Supreme Court issued a series of rulings in an effort to clarify standards for state legislative redistricting. In Reynolds v. Sims, the court ruled that "the Equal Protection Clause [of the United States Constitution] demands no less than substantially equal state legislative representation for all citizens, of all places as well as of all races." According to All About Redistricting, "it has become accepted that a [redistricting] plan will be constitutionally suspect if the largest and smallest districts [within a state or jurisdiction] are more than 10 percent apart."

State-based requirements

In addition to the federal criteria noted above, individual states may impose additional requirements on redistricting. Common state-level redistricting criteria are listed below.

1. Contiguity refers to the principle that all areas within a district should be physically adjacent. A total of 49 states require that districts of at least one state legislative chamber be contiguous (Nevada has no such requirement, imposing no requirements on redistricting beyond those enforced at the federal level). A total of 23 states require that congressional districts meet contiguity requirements.
2. Compactness refers to the general principle that the constituents within a district should live as near to one another as practicable. A total of 37 states impose compactness requirements on state legislative districts; 18 states impose similar requirements for congressional districts.
3. A community of interest is defined by FairVote as a "group of people in a geographical area, such as a specific region or neighborhood, who have common political, social or economic interests." A total of 24 states require that the maintenance of communities of interest be considered in the drawing of state legislative districts. A total of 13 states impose similar requirements for congressional districts.
4. A total of 42 states require that state legislative district lines be drawn to account for political boundaries (e.g., the limits of counties, cities, and towns). A total of 19 states require that similar considerations be made in the drawing of congressional districts.

Methods

In general, a state's redistricting authority can be classified as one of the following:

1. Legislature-dominant: In a legislature-dominant state, the legislature retains the ultimate authority to draft and enact district maps. Maps enacted by the legislature may or may not be subject to gubernatorial veto. Advisory commissions may also be involved in the redistricting process, although the legislature is not bound to adopt an advisory commission's recommendations.
2. Commission: In a commission state, an extra-legislative commission retains the ultimate authority to draft and enact district maps. A non-politician commission is one whose members cannot hold elective office. A politician commission is one whose members can hold elective office.
3. Hybrid: In a hybrid state, the legislature shares redistricting authority with a commission.

Gerrymandering

In 1812, Massachusetts Governor Elbridge Gerry signed into law a state Senate district map that, according to the Encyclopædia Britannica, "consolidated the Federalist Party vote in a few districts and thus gave disproportionate representation to Democratic-Republicans." The word gerrymander was coined by The Boston Gazette to describe the district.

See also: Gerrymandering

The term gerrymandering refers to the practice of drawing electoral district lines to favor one political party, individual, or constituency over another. When used in a rhetorical manner by opponents of a particular district map, the term has a negative connotation but does not necessarily address the legality of a challenged map. The term can also be used in legal documents; in this context, the term describes redistricting practices that violate federal or state laws.

For additional background information about gerrymandering, click "[Show more]" below.

Show more

The phrase racial gerrymandering refers to the practice of drawing electoral district lines to dilute the voting power of racial minority groups. Federal law prohibits racial gerrymandering and establishes that, to combat this practice and to ensure compliance with the Voting Rights Act, states and jurisdictions can create majority-minority electoral districts. A majority-minority district is one in which a racial group or groups comprise a majority of the district's populations. Racial gerrymandering and majority-minority districts are discussed in greater detail in this article.

The phrase partisan gerrymandering refers to the practice of drawing electoral district maps with the intention of favoring one political party over another. In contrast with racial gerrymandering, on which the Supreme Court of the United States has issued rulings in the past affirming that such practices violate federal law, the high court had not, as of November 2017, issued a ruling establishing clear precedent on the question of partisan gerrymandering. Although the court has granted in past cases that partisan gerrymandering can violate the United States Constitution, it has never adopted a standard for identifying or measuring partisan gerrymanders. Partisan gerrymandering is described in greater detail in this article.

Recent court decisions

See also: Redistricting cases heard by the Supreme Court of the United States

The Supreme Court of the United States has, in recent years, issued several decisions dealing with redistricting policy, including rulings relating to the consideration of race in drawing district maps, the use of total population tallies in apportionment, and the constitutionality of redistricting commissions. The rulings in these cases, which originated in a variety of states, impact redistricting processes across the nation.

For additional background information about these cases, click "[Show more]" below.

Show more

Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP (2024)

See also: Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP

Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP — This case concerns a challenge to the congressional redistricting plan that the South Carolina legislature enacted after the 2020 census. In January 2023, a federal three-judge panel ruled that the state's 1st Congressional District was unconstitutional and enjoined the state from conducting future elections using its district boundaries. The panel's opinion said, "The Court finds that race was the predominant factor motivating the General Assembly’s adoption of Congressional District No. 1...Defendants have made no showing that they had a compelling state interest in the use of race in the design of Congressional District No. 1 and thus cannot survive a strict scrutiny review." Thomas Alexander (R)—in his capacity as South Carolina State Senate president—appealed the federal court's ruling, arguing: :In striking down an isolated portion of South Carolina Congressional District 1 as a racial gerrymander, the panel never even mentioned the presumption of the General Assembly’s “good faith.”...The result is a thinly reasoned order that presumes bad faith, erroneously equates the purported racial effect of a single line in Charleston County with racial predominance across District 1, and is riddled with “legal mistake[s]” that improperly relieved Plaintiffs of their “demanding” burden to prove that race was the “predominant consideration” in District 1. The U.S. Supreme Court scheduled oral argument on this case for October 11, 2023.

Moore v. Harper (2023)

See also: Moore v. Harper

At issue in Moore v. Harper, was whether state legislatures alone are empowered by the Constitution to regulate federal elections without oversight from state courts, which is known as the independent state legislature doctrine. On November 4, 2021, the North Carolina General Assembly adopted a new congressional voting map based on 2020 Census data. The legislature, at that time, was controlled by the Republican Party. In the case Harper v. Hall (2022), a group of Democratic Party-affiliated voters and nonprofit organizations challenged the map in state court, alleging that the new map was a partisan gerrymander that violated the state constitution. On February 14, 2022, the North Carolina Supreme Court ruled that the state could not use the map in the 2022 elections and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings. The trial court adopted a new congressional map drawn by three court-appointed experts. The United States Supreme Court affirmed the North Carolina Supreme Court's original decision in Moore v. Harper that the state's congressional district map violated state law. In a 6-3 decision, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that the "Elections Clause does not vest exclusive and independent authority in state legislatures to set the rules regarding federal elections.

Merrill v. Milligan (2023)

See also: Merrill v. Milligan

At issue in Merrill v. Milligan, was the constitutionality of Alabama's 2021 redistricting plan and whether it violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. A group of Alabama voters and organizations sued Secretary of State John Merrill (R) and the House and Senate redistricting chairmen, Rep. Chris Pringle (R) and Sen. Jim McClendon (R). Plaintiffs alleged the congressional map enacted on Nov. 4, 2021, by Gov. Kay Ivey (R) unfairly distributed Black voters. The plaintiffs asked the lower court to invalidate the enacted congressional map and order a new map with instructions to include a second majority-Black district. The court ruled 5-4, affirming the lower court opinion that the plaintiffs showed a reasonable likelihood of success concerning their claim that Alabama's redistricting map violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.

Gill v. Whitford (2018)

See also: Gill v. Whitford

In Gill v. Whitford, decided on June 18, 2018, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the plaintiffs—12 Wisconsin Democrats who alleged that Wisconsin's state legislative district plan had been subject to an unconstitutional gerrymander in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments—had failed to demonstrate standing under Article III of the United States Constitution to bring a complaint. The court's opinion, penned by Chief Justice John Roberts, did not address the broader question of whether partisan gerrymandering claims are justiciable and remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings. Roberts was joined in the majority opinion by Associate Justices Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Samuel Alito, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan. Kagan penned a concurring opinion joined by Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor. Associate Justice Clarence Thomas penned an opinion that concurred in part with the majority opinion and in the judgment, joined by Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch.

Cooper v. Harris (2017)

See also: Cooper v. Harris

In Cooper v. Harris, decided on May 22, 2017, the Supreme Court of the United States affirmed the judgment of the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, finding that two of North Carolina's congressional districts, the boundaries of which had been set following the 2010 United States Census, had been subject to an illegal racial gerrymander in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Justice Elena Kagan delivered the court's majority opinion, which was joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, and Sonia Sotomayor (Thomas also filed a separate concurring opinion). In the court's majority opinion, Kagan described the two-part analysis utilized by the high court when plaintiffs allege racial gerrymandering as follows: "First, the plaintiff must prove that 'race was the predominant factor motivating the legislature's decision to place a significant number of voters within or without a particular district.' ... Second, if racial considerations predominated over others, the design of the district must withstand strict scrutiny. The burden shifts to the State to prove that its race-based sorting of voters serves a 'compelling interest' and is 'narrowly tailored' to that end." In regard to the first part of the aforementioned analysis, Kagan went on to note that "a plaintiff succeeds at this stage even if the evidence reveals that a legislature elevated race to the predominant criterion in order to advance other goals, including political ones." Justice Samuel Alito delivered an opinion that concurred in part and dissented in part with the majority opinion. This opinion was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Anthony Kennedy.

Evenwel v. Abbott (2016)

See also: Evenwel v. Abbott

Evenwel v. Abbott was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in 2016. At issue was the constitutionality of state legislative districts in Texas. The plaintiffs, Sue Evenwel and Edward Pfenninger, argued that district populations ought to take into account only the number of registered or eligible voters residing within those districts as opposed to total population counts, which are generally used for redistricting purposes. Total population tallies include non-voting residents, such as immigrants residing in the country without legal permission, prisoners, and children. The plaintiffs alleged that this tabulation method dilutes the voting power of citizens residing in districts that are home to smaller concentrations of non-voting residents. The court ruled 8-0 on April 4, 2016, that a state or locality can use total population counts for redistricting purposes. The majority opinion was penned by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (2016)

Justice Stephen Breyer penned the majority opinion in Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission.

See also: Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission

Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in 2016. At issue was the constitutionality of state legislative districts that were created by the commission in 2012. The plaintiffs, a group of Republican voters, alleged that "the commission diluted or inflated the votes of almost two million Arizona citizens when the commission intentionally and systematically overpopulated 16 Republican districts while under-populating 11 Democrat districts." This, the plaintiffs argued, constituted a partisan gerrymander. The plaintiffs claimed that the commission placed a disproportionately large number of non-minority voters in districts dominated by Republicans; meanwhile, the commission allegedly placed many minority voters in smaller districts that tended to vote Democratic. As a result, the plaintiffs argued, more voters overall were placed in districts favoring Republicans than in those favoring Democrats, thereby diluting the votes of citizens in the Republican-dominated districts. The defendants countered that the population deviations resulted from legally defensible efforts to comply with the Voting Rights Act and obtain approval from the United States Department of Justice. At the time of redistricting, certain states were required to obtain preclearance from the U.S. Department of Justice before adopting redistricting plans or making other changes to their election laws—a requirement struck down by the United States Supreme Court in Shelby County v. Holder (2013). On April 20, 2016, the court ruled unanimously that the plaintiffs had failed to prove that a partisan gerrymander had taken place. Instead, the court found that the commission had acted in good faith to comply with the Voting Rights Act. The court's majority opinion was penned by Justice Stephen Breyer.

Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (2015)

See also: Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission

Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in 2015. At issue was the constitutionality of the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, which was established by state constitutional amendment in 2000. According to Article I, Section 4 of the United States Constitution, "the Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof." The state legislature argued that the use of the word "legislature" in this context is literal; therefore, only a state legislature may draw congressional district lines. Meanwhile, the commission contended that the word "legislature" ought to be interpreted to mean "the legislative powers of the state," including voter initiatives and referenda. On June 29, 2015, the court ruled 5-4 in favor of the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, finding that "redistricting is a legislative function, to be performed in accordance with the state's prescriptions for lawmaking, which may include the referendum and the governor's veto." The majority opinion was penned by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and joined by Justices Anthony Kennedy, Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, and Samuel Alito dissented.

Trifectas and redistricting

In 34 of the states that conducted legislative elections in 2020, the legislatures themselves played a significant part in the subsequent redistricting process. The winner of eight of 2020's gubernatorial elections had veto authority over state legislative or congressional district plans approved by legislatures. The party that won trifecta control of a state in which redistricting authority rests with the legislature directed the process that produces the maps that will be used for the remainder of the decade. Trifecta shifts in the 2010 election cycle illustrate this point. In 2010, 12 states in which legislatures had authority over redistricting saw shifts in trifecta status. Prior to the 2010 elections, seven of these states were Democratic trifectas; the rest were divided governments. After the 2010 elections, seven of these states became Republican trifectas; the remainder either remained or became divided governments. The table below details these shifts and charts trifecta status heading into the 2020 election cycle.

The 12 legislature-redistricting states that saw trifecta shifts in 2010 – subsequent trifecta status

State	Primary redistricting authority	Pre-2010 trifecta status	Post-2010 trifecta status	Post-2018 trifecta status
Alabama	Legislature	Divided	Republican	Republican
Colorado	Congressional maps: legislature State legislative maps: politician commission	Democratic	Divided	Democratic
Indiana	Legislature	Divided	Republican	Republican
Iowa	Legislature	Democratic	Divided	Republican
Maine	Legislature	Democratic	Republican	Democratic
Michigan	Legislature	Divided	Republican	Divided
New Hampshire	Legislature	Democratic	Divided	Divided
North Carolina	Legislature	Democratic	Divided	Divided
Ohio	Congressional maps: legislature State legislative maps: politician commission	Divided	Republican	Republican
Oregon	Legislature	Democratic	Divided	Democratic
Pennsylvania	Congressional maps: legislature State legislative maps: politician commission	Divided	Republican	Divided
Wisconsin	Legislature	Democratic	Republican	Divided

2010 redistricting cycle

Redistricting in Minnesota after the 2010 census

Congressional redistricting, 2010

Following the 2010 United States Census, Minnesota neither gained nor lost congressional seats. At the time of redistricting, Republicans controlled both chambers of the state legislature but a Democrat, Mark Dayton, was governor. On May 19, 2011, Dayton vetoed the legislature's plan. The Minnesota Supreme Court appointed a judicial panel to draw the lines. The panel issued its map on February 21, 2012.

State legislative redistricting, 2010

On May 19, 2011, Governor Mark Dayton (D) vetoed the state legislative district map approved by the state legislature, which at the time was dominated by Republicans. Consequently, the Minnesota Supreme Court appointed a judicial panel to draw the lines. The panel issued its map on February 21, 2012.

See also

• Redistricting in Minnesota after the 2010 census
• Redistricting in Minnesota
• State-by-state redistricting procedures
• Majority-minority districts

External links

• Search Google News for this topic
• All About Redistricting
• Dave's Redistricting
• FiveThirtyEight, "What Redistricting Looks Like In Every State"
• National Conference of State Legislatures, "Redistricting Process"
• FairVote, "Redistricting"